An often cited advantage of arbitration, as opposed to litigation, is the finality of the process. The grounds for time-consuming and costly challenges and appeals are limited.

Under the English 1996 Arbitration Act (the “Act”), parties can only challenge or appeal an arbitration award on three grounds: (i) a challenge on the grounds that the tribunal lacks substantive jurisdiction under Section 67, (ii) a challenge on the grounds of serious irregularity causing substantial injustice under Section 68, and (iii) an appeal on a point of law under Section 69. Only Sections 67 and 68 are mandatory provisions. There is a high evidentiary threshold to be met in order for the grounds under any of t [...]

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and should not be regarded as representative of, or binding upon ArbitralWomen and/or the authors’ law firm.

1. Introduction

In this overview, the highlights of the New Dutch Arbitration Act will be discussed. The New Act entered into force on 1 January 2015 in relation to arbitrations commenced on or after 1 January 2015. The New Act is an amendment to the former Dutch Arbitration Act, which dates back to 1986 , many aspects of which remain unchanged in the New Act. Although the Act is not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (2006), the Dutch legislator, in its preparation for the New Act, did look to the Model Law (2006).

International arbitration must of necessity rely on the courts to uphold and enforce arbitral awards and to support the arbitral process. In words of Professor Jan Paulsson, “the great paradox of arbitration is that it seeks the cooperation of the very public authorities from which it wants to free itself.” (Jan Paulsson, Arbitration in Three Dimensions, LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 2/2010 (January 13, 2010)) The courts, not the arbitrators, have to give effect to the arbitral award. Hence, one of the major issues in the law of arbitration continues to be the tension between the courts and the arbitral process: while judicial support is vital to the arbitral process, excessive interve [...]

For many years, the standard of review by French courts of awards rendered in international arbitration proceedings on grounds of violation of international public policy has been controversial. Scholars have debated the relative merits of a “minimalist” as opposed to a “maximalist” approach. In court decisions, the “minimalist” approach prevailed.

In the area of competition law, the “minimalist” standard of review found expression, perhaps most famously, in the 2004 Paris Court of Appeal decision in SA Thales Air Defence v. GIE Euromissile and SA EADS France (1er Ch., sect. C, 18 November 2004) with the requirement that relevant breach of international public policy be “f [...]

The Singapore courts have a well-earned reputation for supporting arbitration proceedings and favouring minimal curial intervention. That reputation has been enhanced by a number of recent decisions in which the courts have either granted stays of court actions pending the resolution of arbitration proceedings or rejected applications for arbitral awards to be set aside, including two recent cases, TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 186 and BLC and others v BLB and another [2014] SGCA 40. By contrast, the recent decision of the Singapore High Court in AKM v AKN and another and other matters [2014] SGHC 148 provides a rare example of the courts gran [...]

In further nod to the non-interventionist and pro-arbitration stance of the Singapore courts, the Singapore Court of Appeal in BLC and ors v. BLB and anor [2014] SGCA 40 (“the BLC decision“) reversed the decision of the High Court to set aside part of an arbitration award (“Award“) on the ground of a breach of natural justice. The court also provided valuable guidance on Articles 33(3) and 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law“).

Background facts

The dispute arose out of an unsuccessful joint venture between the parties. The appellants commenced arbitration against the respondents alleging that they had breached several agreements, in particula [...]